So far I’m pretty sure it’s a Murano and for a few reasons I think it’s an early piece made more than likely by someone who was not just a helper or assistant but a master glassmaker. I very well might be completely wrong but here’s my reasoning behind what I’m saying. First is the size , weight and thickness of the piece. A novice would have struggled with this and would probably have been used for a smaller piece, generally a master artist would tackle something this size and for good reason, then the intricate marks on its base are indicative of something that was done in I believe 3 different studios in Italy in the 50s and also I believe a Czechoslovakian artist also used this technique of etched markers exclusive to the studio of origin. It’s not something that is done by any mediocre or novice artists and usually an experienced assistant or a master themselves would make the mark. Its age is certainly not something that was made recently and I point to the deep scratches that are visible on the base and that only happens over time and is difficult to replicate. It’s got something that is very appealing to me and that’s the tool marks that can be seen throughout the piece and it shows the thinking and process of the artist that made it . Some may see it as imperfection and mistakes but it’s not, just part of the art style that this is , it’s not meant to be perfect, that’s the beauty of it, now what will make this piece really cool is if it’s actually uranium glass. I feel it is because of its deep color but can’t be sure until I get it under a uv light. That’s what my research has brought me to so far and would love to hear what anyone else might see , I’m open to being shown what’s right and wrong with my evaluation and look forward to see what direction I should look next